When I first launched this site I chose a picture of Diogenes to feature as my banner. The suggestion was that I would search for truth. I made that suggestion with modest expectations, because finding truth is something quite apart from the search.

Since my first post on this site I've dabbled in social media and have been dismayed to see a disinterest in verifying information and sources. What the purveyors of such news are counting on is ignorance. Which takes me back to a point I've made many times in my posts: education is the key to a free society. A good education inculcates a lifetime habit of skeptical reading.

Consumers of news need to question; in order to ask good questions they need a foundation of basic information. Laying the foundation should begin early and continue for years. It is in this spirit that I have agreed to write for a start-up company, Rhythm Prism Publishing.

Rhythm Prism concentrates on producing brief books for young students. The books focus on significant personalities or on consequential aspects of history. The books are not simply readers, but also challenge with questions.

If you know a young student whose school curriculum seems anemic, especially with regard to conveying an understanding about basic movements in history, give these books a look. I think you will find them informative, readable and attractive.

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl,
Fukushima: disasters that changed the way many people view nuclear power.
Once touted as "greener" than fossil fuels,
nuclear's reputation has taken a battering in recent years. Governments
and industry representatives have a hard time convincing people that
nuclear plants have fail-safe measures built into them. So, if nuclear
is to increase its share of the global energy picture, it has to revamp its
somewhat tarnished image.

That's where the liquid fluoride
thorium reactor--LFTR--comes in. This reactor
is supposed to be safe and clean. The
case for LFTR technology is presented enthusiastically. Considering how
high the stakes are in the game of energy roulette, it's probably wise
to apply a little skepticism to the LFTR optimism.

One of the arguments advanced by the LFTR camp is that
nuclear waste, with this technology, would no longer be a problem.
That's because--we're told--- the LFTR is designed to recycle fuel. At
the end of many cycles, very little radioactive material is left.
Another benefit of the LFTR is supposed to be that it is Inherently...safer than conventional light water reactors, According to one website, the LFTR has "no
high pressure or chemically
reactive ‘driver’ to expel radiotoxic substances into the environment".
In the event of a breach, molten fuel is designed to drain "down the
side of the vessel into non-critically
configured drain tanks". And, in the event of overheating, the fuel is supposed to flow "to the drain tanks" and solidify.

One
more claim of LFTR proponents is that diversion of material for
bomb-making is not likely. In the words of an LFTR cheerleader the reactor is "worthless for making nuclear weapons"Many
are the claims about the benefits of LFTR technology; I have touched on
only three. To rebut these claims, I offer opinions from a variety of
experts. Most of the opinions are given in the form of direct
quotes--with links to lengthy explanations.

Read the statements below; follow the links to associated articles. Then
form your own judgment about whether or not you believe thorium, LFTR
or any kind of nuclear is a good idea.

Keep in mind as you review these statements that
investment in LFTR may come at great cost to other kinds of energy
development. There's a finite supply of private and public money. As we
make decisions about how to allocate that money, we should be sure the
expenditure benefits us today and in years to come.

“Chinese
out of Xinjiang”; “Independence for Xinjiang”; “Cut off the
railroad from China proper to Xinjiang”.Posters with these
slogans were discovered in 1985 at Xinjiang University in Urumqi,
Xinjiang. The posters were
indications of a growing sentiment among indigenous Uyghurs: the
immigration of Chinese Han is a threat to the ethnic and
culture identity of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang.

That
the posters zeroed in on the railroad is not surprising;
it is the railroad that carries trainloads of Han
Chinese to Xinjiang--so many Han, in fact, that Uyghurs are fast
becoming a minority in their own land. Ethnic Han, as a percentage of
the population, have grown from under 7% in 1950 to about
40% today. The indigenous Uyghurs realize that, at this rate--a
virtual demographic colonization--Han Chinese will soon be a
majority in Xinjiang and Uyghur culture will be eclipsed.

Uyghurs
are a Turkic people whose roots in Xinjiang reach back some 4000
years. At least, that's what Uyghur scholars and most Western
historians believe. However, the Chinese have a different view. They
offer an alternate narrative for Uyghur origins, one that does not
support this strong indigenous link to the area.

According
to Dr. Sean Roberts, of George Washington University,
modern Uyghur opposition to Chinese rule may be traced to around
1750, when the Qing Emperor conquered Uyghur lands, an area that lay
along the Silk Road. Since the time of this
conquest, Uyghurs have periodically fought for their independence and
at times have achieved it. However, after the defeat of the Kuomintang in
1949, Mao Zedong sent his army to assert control over Xinjiang's
Uyghur population. Since then, the notion of Uyghur sovereignty has
been vigorously repressed

Xinjiang
is important to China not only because of its size--about four times as large as California--but also because the territory is rich
in resources.

Mao began transporting Han Chinese into Xinjiang, to exploit
natural resources and also to cement a hold on the area. The
organization that facilitated the settlement of the Han was (and
still is) the XPCC, the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corp.

According
to Remi Castets, of the Center for International Studies (CERI,
Paris), Uyghur resistance to Chinese control, though evident in the
50s, 60s and 70s, intensified in recent decades. This has been in
response to a conspicuous and widening gap between the opportunities enjoyed by indigenous Uyghurs and those enjoyed by immigrant Hans. As these disparities provoked Uyghur resentment,
the central Chinese government doubled down on effortsto suppress expressions of Uyghur religious and ethnic identity.

Gardner
Bovingden reports in his book, The Uyghurs: Strangers in Their Own Land,
that in the 1990s the Chinese government began to demolish mosques
and close private religious schools. This suppression of religious
institutions strengthened Uyghur resolve. It also
drove many in the independence movement to seek support from Islamic
groups outside of China. These groups have generally been the only
significant external sources of support open to the Uyghurs because
China has pressured other countries to reject Uyghur refugees and to offer no assistance.

It
is the international isolation of Uyghurs that first caught my
attention.

Some years ago I read about a group of prisoners at Gitmo who had
been transferred from a prison in Afghanistan. These men, 22 in all,
were Uyghurs. It turned out that though they had been identified as
enemy combatants, they were not. They were apparently innocent of
the charge; the U. S. government was eager to release these exonerated individuals. However,
there was no place for the men to go.

They
could not be repatriated to Xinjiang, where certain persecution
awaited at the hands of the Chinese government. Other countries were
not inclined to take them because of China's strong protests. And
transfer to the U.S. was impossible because the U. S. Congress
blocked this move.

So
for years, the Uyghur detainees stayed at Gitmo. Eventually each of
the 22 was sent to a place that welcomed him, a place that the detainee
found acceptable. Transfer of the last Uyghur detainee was completed
in December of 20013.

As
the drama of the Gitmo Uyghurs progressed, periodic reports of Uyghur
resistance to Chinese control surfaced. China, especially after
9/11, characterized these actions as terrorism instigated by outside
agents.Jonathan Kaiman, writing in the Guardian,
explained recently, "The default position of the government has
always been to blame foreigners and never admit that ethnic relations
in China might have serious problems".

Because
China blames outside agitators for Uyghur resistance, it refuses to
address the issues that have exacerbated Uyghur discontent:
increasing marginalization in their own land. Han Chinese not only
occupy most positions of power and enjoy markedly superior economic
status, but their children are being groomed to enter the upper
echelons of economic and political life in Xinjiang. Uyghur children
lack access to good education and are hampered by linguistic
barriers. Remi Castets states, "the poor educational access,
even more than linguistic handicaps and sometimes discriminatory job
recruitment" insure that future generations of Xinjiang Uyghurs
will be consigned to "the lowest rungs of society".

Amnesty
International and other human rights organizations have cited China
for its abuse of the Uyghur minority community. Increasingly,
Uyghur grievances are receiving international notice--this despite
the fact that China has placed an embargo on diplomatic discussions
of Uyghur concerns. But the chorus grows for just treatment of the
Uyghur people. With this blog I add my voice to that chorus.